Reformism vs Revolutionism

[TheCommunistManifestor]

I am a newly self-christened communist in high school but i am on the fence about the whole Reformism against Revolutionism argument. I am currently leaning towards Reformism because i don't think an organized revolt against the bourgeoisie is practical in this day and age. I am open to all information to change my opinion.


P.S. If i am a reformist will i be accepted on this forum?

[boiler]

There is no reforming the capitalist system, its based on greed. Any time there were reforms made to help people they were always took away. Read these two books they might change your mind on reformism.

Reform or Revolution by Rosa Luxemburg
http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

The State and Revolution by V.I. Lenin
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm

[motion denied]

How do you think property would be socialised through reforms?

[helot]

I am a newly self-christened communist in high school but i am on the fence about the whole Reformism against Revolutionism argument. I am currently leaning towards Reformism because i don't think an organized revolt against the bourgeoisie is practical in this day and age. I am open to all information to change my opinion.

Why don't you think it's practical?




P.S. If i am a reformist will i be accepted on this forum?

You may get restricted to 'opposing ideologies'.

[TheCommunistManifestor]

The biggest reform i can think of to fix capitalism in my home country of The United States is to take the bourgeoisie endorsements and superpacs out of politics and make sure that all politicians are on the same level and arn't in the pockets of the bourgeoisie. The Proletariat masses will then control the democracy and enact more reforms aimed towards the bettering of society rather than the fattening of the bourgeoisies' pocket.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

The biggest reform i can think of to fix capitalism in my home country of The United States is to take the bourgeoisie endorsements and superpacs out of politics and make sure that all politicians are on the same level and arn't in the pockets of the bourgeoisie. The Proletariat masses will then control the democracy and enact more reforms aimed towards the bettering of society rather than the fattening of the bourgeoisies' pocket.
That's the difference between our understanding then. We don't want to 'fix' capitalism but abolish it and liberate humanity from wage slavery. The only way the proletariat is going to ever fully seize power is through revolutionary means. That doesn't mean communists can't defend the gains of the reforms of the past but it must be done with the understanding that the only way to truly emancipate the working class will be through a revolutionary push to abolish class and the system of private property that upholds it.

[Red Shaker]

If you want to end war, racism, sexism and the exploitation of the working class you need communist revolution. But to win working people and students to that outlook you have to be involved in the day to day struggles against the capitalists and their agents. You cannot just shout revolution from the street corner and expect people to follow. You have to gain their trust by working with them. In the course of these fights you point out every gain we make today can be taken back by the bosses tomorrow, and that only by building a mass revolutionary party and getting rid of capitalism can we make the gains permanent.

[TheCommunistManifestor]

I would be more obliged to follow a communist revolution if there you could answer these 3 questions.

1. Can decisions in a communist society be made through democracy? I personally like the democratic form of government.

2. How do i convince people to join a local communist movement? Communism is pretty much a bad word where i live.

3. How many communist people are their in the United States and where are they most prevalent? In a revolution we are going to need at least 1/2 of the population or more.

[#FF0000]

"Reformism" isn't even really a thing anymore in the Bernstein's "evolutionary socialism" sense. I can't think of an organization that advocates for reform and reform only as a means of dismantling capitalism. That doesn't mean that we should never, ever fight for reforms, nor does it necessarily mean not participating in elections for government (though that's kind of a contentious and messy issue even among people who are a-okay with participating in electoral politics).

[boiler]

The biggest reform i can think of to fix capitalism in my home country of The United States is to take the bourgeoisie endorsements and superpacs out of politics and make sure that all politicians are on the same level and arn't in the pockets of the bourgeoisie. The Proletariat masses will then control the democracy and enact more reforms aimed towards the bettering of society rather than the fattening of the bourgeoisies' pocket.

There is no way of taking the bourgeoisie out of politics about 99.9% of politicians have the bourgeoisie's interests at heart, parliaments and states are instruments used by the bourgeois class for oppression to keep power. The only way the proletariat will ever live in fair and democratic system is by revolution.

[TheCommunistManifestor]

There is no way of taking the bourgeoisie out of politics about 99.9% of politicians have the bourgeoisie's interests at heart, parliaments and states are instruments used by the bourgeois class for oppression to keep power. The only the proletariat will ever live in fair and democratic system is by revolution.

If revolution is the ONLY way to have a fair and democratic system then i guess i can submit to the idea of a proletariat revolution.

[#FF0000]

I'm trying to think of some texts you should take a look at that deals with these issues. Critique of the Gotha Programme is a text that does a good job of laying down some of Marx's ideas about the state and the general strategy of "the party" or whatever. Does anyone else have any suggestions because I'm really drawing a blank for some reason.

[boiler]

If revolution is the ONLY way to have a fair and democratic system then i guess i can submit to the idea of a proletariat revolution.

I believe so, all groups in the past that tried to create a socialist system through reformism never worked out for them and they all failed. There was the Workers Party in the Free State in Ireland in the 70's and 80's. Their aim was to reform the Free State into a socialist state. They ended up becoming corrupt, and then joined up with the Labour Party in the early 90's

[Queen Mab]

Yeah, reformism is just a historic failure.

[boiler]

These two might be worth a look at

The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky by V.I. Lenin
http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/index.htm

The ABC of Communism by Nikolai Bukharin

http://marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/index.htm

[#FF0000]

"Revolutionary Strategy" by Mike MacNair has a p. great section on "the right" (read: reformism). The entire first third or so of the book is really great in general when it comes to talk about Marx and his ideas on the "political struggle" or whatever.

I think you can find the book as a PDF online pretty easily.

[Red Shaker]

I would be more obliged to follow a communist revolution if there you could answer these 3 questions.

1. Can decisions in a communist society be made through democracy? I personally like the democratic form of government.

2. How do i convince people to join a local communist movement? Communism is pretty much a bad word where i live.

3. How many communist people are their in the United States and where are they most prevalent? In a revolution we are going to need at least 1/2 of the population or more.

Under communism you have certain principles guiding your actions. These include ending racism and sexism, promoting internationalism, abolishing privilege, meeting workers needs etc.through discussion you try to reach a consensus on how to do this.

To win people to communism you have to explain to them what it is and also realize that the communist movement has made many mistakes of which we are self-critical and trying to make sure we do not make those same mistakes again. In the US today a lot of people realize the system of capitalism is not working. They do not see an alternative. The capitalist point to the failures of the old communist movements. We have to acknowledge that but also show what was accomplished.

Polls indicated their are several million people who like communism in the US. Most of them are not members of any organization. The Progressive Labor Party which I am familiar with has members in most large cities, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Washington DC etc. You can contact them through their web site www.plp.org.

You are right, we need to build a mass revolutionary party if we are to be successful.

Good Luck.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

If you want to end war, racism, sexism and the exploitation of the working class you need communist revolution..
Come on, that's bullshit, you can eradicate sexism and racism in a capitalist society, not only you can, I think it will happen.
Sexism and racism are common in capitalist societies, but they are not essential in the mode of production and one can be a fully capitalist country without those.

__________________

On a completly unrelated note, the Portuguese consituition says right at the beggining:
The Constituent Assembly affirms the Portuguese people’s decision to defend national independence, guarantee fundamental citizens’s rights, establish the basic principles of democracy, ensure the primacy of a democratic state based on the rule of law and open up a path towards a socialist society, with respect for the will of the Portuguese people and with a view to the construction of a country that is freer, more just and more fraternal.
Can I sue them for doing everything opposed to socialism?

[jookyle]

The problem with reform is that it requires the ruling class to willingly hand over their power.


Come on, that's bullshit, you can eradicate sexism and racism in a capitalist society, not only you can, I think it will happen.
Sexism and racism are common in capitalist societies, but they are not essential in the mode of production and one can be a fully capitalist country without those.

Capitalism as it exists today, and as it has throughout history, has relied on racism and sexism to maintain itself in many categories such as: imperialism, misguiding class antagonisms, marketing, subjugating workers, exploiting culturalism for profit. To just name a few.

[Manic Impressive]

Capitalism as it exists today, and as it has throughout history, has relied on racism and sexism to maintain itself in many categories such as: imperialism, misguiding class antagonisms, marketing, subjugating workers, exploiting culturalism for profit. To just name a few.
But ultimately it is unprofitable. Which is why we see legislation against discrimination on the grounds of race, gender, sexuality. Thing to remember about capitalism is that profit is always the number one consideration for any government. The maintenance and generation of it. All legislation first benefits the capitalist class, it can occasionally have some benefit for the working class also but these are secondary considerations for the bourgeoisie.

Take for example the set up of the National Health Service in Britain. Before it was set up we had an insurance system, similar to the US. However, this proved to be unprofitable. So a new policy was drafted not in the interests of the working class but in the interests of profit. The NHS is often lauded as "the greatest reform won by the working class (in britain)". This is false it was not won it was dictated and it was first and foremost in the interests of the ruling class.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/beveridge-re-organises-poverty

Just gonna pick a few quotes from the beveridge report (the NHS)


There are yet others who will say that, however desirable it may appear to reconstruct social insurance or to make other plans for a better world of peace, all such concerns must now be put on one side, so that Britain may concentrate upon the urgent tasks of war. There is no need to spend words today in emphasising the urgency or the difficulty of the task that faces the British people and their Allies. Only by surviving victoriously in the present struggle can they enable freedom and happiness and kindliness to survive in the world. Only by obtaining from every individual citizen his maximum effort, concentrated upon the purposes of war, can they hope for early victory. This does not alter three facts: that the purpose of victory is to live into a better world than the old world; that each individual citizen is more likely to concentrate upon his war effort if he feels that his Government will be ready in time with plans for that better world; that if these plans are to be ready in time, they must be made now.
“Some of my hon. Friends seem to overlook one or two ultimate facts about social reform. The first is that if you do not give people social reform, they are going to give you social revolution....Let anyone consider the possibility of a series of dangerous industrial strikes following the present hostilities, and the effect that it would have on our industrial recovery....”
“...social insurance and the allied services, as they exist today, are conducted by a complex of disconnected administrative organs, proceeding on different principles, doing invaluable service but at a cost in money and trouble and anomalous treatment of identical problems for which there is no justification. In a system of social security, better on the whole than can be found in almost any other country, there are serious deficiencies which call for remedy.”

“...It is not open to question that, by closer co-ordination, the existing social services could be made at once more beneficial and more intelligible to those whom they serve and more economical in their administration.”
“It is to the interest of employers as such that the employees should have security, should be properly maintained during the inevitable intervals of unemployment or of sickness, should have the content which helps to make them efficient producers
strongly in favour of the principles and almost all the proposals of the Beveridge Report.... I have not the faintest doubt that if we can survive the first severe business contraction which arises after the war, social security of this nature will be about the most profitable long-term investment the country could make. It will not undermine the moral of the nation’s workers: it will ultimately lead to a higher efficiency among them and a lowering of production costs.So there you have it the greatest reform won by the British working class was nothing of the sort. Hope that helps OP.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Come on, that's bullshit, you can eradicate sexism and racism in a capitalist society, not only you can, I think it will happen.
Sexism and racism are common in capitalist societies, but they are not essential in the mode of production and one can be a fully capitalist country without those.
OK, the problem here is that you're talking about an idealist capitalism, and not real, existing, historical capitalism. Real capitalism is premised on, on one hand: women's unpaid reproductive and affective labour, and, on the other, the permanence of a "colour-coded" workforce in an imperialist and neo-/colonial world system.
So, sure, in the abstract, there's no reason you can't have capitalism without sexism and racism (money is theoretically colour-/gender-blind), but we need to grapple with real capitalism, which requires certain "tweaks" from the on-paper liberal utopia of ECON101. Primitive accumulation continues.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

OK, the problem here is that you're talking about an idealist capitalism, and not real, existing, historical capitalism. Real capitalism is premised on, on one hand: women's unpaid reproductive and affective labour, and, on the other, the permanence of a "colour-coded" workforce in an imperialist and neo-/colonial world system.
So, sure, in the abstract, there's no reason you can't have capitalism without sexism and racism (money is theoretically colour-/gender-blind), but we need to grapple with real capitalism, which requires certain "tweaks" from the on-paper liberal utopia of ECON101. Primitive accumulation continues.
Don't go by what's real or not, because it's not a good argument, specially from Communists.
A lot of efforts have been made in the current (capitalistic) society to stop racism and sexism, sooner or later I believe we'll achieve that to almost 100%. Unless the revolution happens before, which I doubt it.

[Ember Catching]

Don't go by what's real or not, because it's not a good argument, specially from Communists.
Why? Because you subscribe to the historical-revisionist platitude "it only works on paper"? There can be no ignorance of historical truth: developing a historically-sound critique of the tactics of international communism from the undiluted lessons of the defeated world revolution is absolutely necessary for all scientific socialists.

Unless the revolution happens before, which I doubt.
That observation is more nuanced than you think: the fractionated mobilization of labor in lockstep with capital against sectional inequalities necessarily forestalls the struggle for dictatorship.

[Per Levy]

Proletariat Revolution and one party is fundamental to communism, anything else really isn't communism, Marx was clear when he wrote the Manifesto.

i've read the manifesto a few times, its been some years since the last time but i dont remember marx said anything about a one party bringing communism, or do you mean a one party rule? never read that in the manifesto either, and it also wouldnt be communism. please link me to these passages in the manifesto if you have them handy.

[Marxaveli]

Come on, that's bullshit, you can eradicate sexism and racism in a capitalist society, not only you can, I think it will happen.
Sexism and racism are common in capitalist societies, but they are not essential in the mode of production and one can be a fully capitalist country without those.

I disagree comrade. As Malcolm X once said, "you cannot have capitalism without racism". The system as a totality requires social divisions within the working class that are necessary to keep them pacified, weak, and disorganized. Nationalism itself is only a short step away from racism and sexism (if it isnt such already) and this is an important tool for the bourgeois. Theoretically, yea, you could have a capitalist system without racism or sexism, but how long do you think it would last? It would not be practical at all for the material interests of the bourgeois, because a united, organized, and conscious working class is dangerous to their interests. As a result, institutionalized racism and sexism in some form is critical to the livelihood of capitalism and thus they become a natural social relationship in it.


Don't go by what's real or not, because it's not a good argument, specially from Communists.
A lot of efforts have been made in the current (capitalistic) society to stop racism and sexism, sooner or later I believe we'll achieve that to almost 100%. Unless the revolution happens before, which I doubt it. I don't understand this logic at all. Going by what is REAL is not only a good argument from communists, but it should be the ONLY argument. Marxism is anti-idealist, and what you are spouting is complete idealism. Yes, efforts have been made to stop racism and sexism within the current system - and they have ultimately FAILED. Why? Because as I stated before, you cannot have capitalism without some form of racism or sexism, and to think otherwise is a complete idealist pipe dream. Truth be told you sound more like a Liberal than you do a Marxist.

[Geiseric]

Don't go by what's real or not, because it's not a good argument, specially from Communists.
A lot of efforts have been made in the current (capitalistic) society to stop racism and sexism, sooner or later I believe we'll achieve that to almost 100%. Unless the revolution happens before, which I doubt it.

If you've read about the history of the US, you'd realize how wrong you are about this.

[#FF0000]

If you've read about the history of the US, you'd realize how wrong you are about this.

Yeah -- race isn't just a big issue but kind of a core issue in the United States, imo. And the idea that racism or sexism are anywhere close to being "done away with" is kind of silly considering how racism and xenophobia is on the rise now with folks in Europe completely ignoring the lessons learned by the American labor movement when "mass immigration" (on a scale that was actually "mass") was a reality here. v:mellow:v

[Marshal of the People]

Why can't we try to achieve reforms. None of you have started the revolution yet and I doubt any of you will actually try. So why can't we try to reform the system in the present and then wait for the revolution if it happens in our lifetime.

[TheSocialistMetalhead]

It's funny how revolution is always talked about as if it were impossible and reformism is praised to high heavens by social democrats and the like.

It's funny because from our point of view, it's obviously reformism that amounts to no real progress. Why?

Because the bourgeoisie can snap their fingers and have all the wondrous reforms taken away within a second. They don't take them all away at once because they realise that would probably result in the revolution we advocate.

[helot]

Why can't we try to achieve reforms. None of you have started the revolution yet and I doubt any of you will actually try. So why can't we try to reform the system in the present and then wait for the revolution if it happens in our lifetime.

and how do we try to achieve reforms?


I'm of the understanding that through our attempts to build a movement capable of abolishing capitalism there'll be various reforms thrown our way. This of course doesn't mean fronting some candidates to stand in some shitty elections but through our independent strength. What should be the aim of all genuine revolutionaries is developing the confidence and independent activity of the working class, in direct hostility to all bourgeois institutions, through everyday struggle.

[#FF0000]

Why can't we try to achieve reforms

No one said that we can't.

[Five Year Plan]

P.S. If i am a reformist will i be accepted on this forum?

Good news! Not only will you be accepted, you may even get promoted to the position of moderator or administrator!

In all seriousness, though, you should check out Luxemburg's pamphlet "Reform or Revolution"

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

I don't understand this logic at all. Going by what is REAL is not only a good argument from communists, but it should be the ONLY argument. Marxism is anti-idealist, and what you are spouting is complete idealism. Yes, efforts have been made to stop racism and sexism within the current system - and they have ultimately FAILED. Why? Because as I stated before, you cannot have capitalism without some form of racism or sexism, and to think otherwise is a complete idealist pipe dream. Truth be told you sound more like a Liberal than you do a Marxist.
And I disagree with you and Malcom X. You're underestimating capitalism, capitalism is highly adaptive, and they know if the majority of the people are against racism and sexism (I believe it's already the case in developed countries), they will have to adapt to diminish the risk of revolution. Why do we see many laws against spreading racism? I believe the efforts here are genuine.
Of course, there's still much to be done, marketing is a lot sexist, people themselves are sexist sometimes without even realising due to how deep it is in our roots.

[Althusser]

Reformism isn't a viable option.

1. Since the ruling class has ideological hegemony (bourgeois ideology is dominant in capitalist society) To attempt to have people vote for the "most communist" candidate in elections would really get you nowhere in such a hostile anti-communist environment.

2. Even if people did decide to vote for the most communist candidate (as absurd as it sounds) what would they be able to change about capitalist society within the mechanisms of a bourgeois capitalist government? The most anyone could do is give away some concessions to quiet the storm of proletarian anger to try to stop revolution.

3. The most glaring problem with reformist politics is that those people think that within the confines of elections and legal means a bourgeois democracy like America can be transformed into a socialist society. This is absolutely wrong for a number of reasons. If voting could change anything, it would be made illegal. Hypothetically speaking, if people starting voting in candidates that were making America communist, the bourgeois democratic society you see today would quickly turn into a McCarthyite ideological assault, a second "red scare." If that didn't work, then there would be death squads in Manhatten as there are death squads in India and the Philippines today that exist to kill communists and crush people's war. Fight fire with fire. Engulf their flames with ours until capitalism is in the dustbin of history.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

So there you have it the greatest reform won by the British working class was nothing of the sort. Hope that helps OP.

Despite that, I'd rather have an NHS than not have one. I'd hate to have a US-style system, although the ruling classes in the UK appear determined to get rid of the NHS via a death of a thousand cuts. :mad:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why can't we try to achieve reforms. None of you have started the revolution yet and I doubt any of you will actually try. So why can't we try to reform the system in the present and then wait for the revolution if it happens in our lifetime.

I think there is a crucial distinction to be made between "achieving" reforms, and reformism. "Trying to reform the system" by the means advocated by reformism (petitioning, voting, etc.) tends to be a recipe for abject failure - if not always and absolutely, certainly at our current juncture (Labour? PASOK? New Democratic Party?).

Reforms aren't a bad thing, but we have to think about how they're actually won - struggle, and specifically struggle that breaks out of the bounds of bourgeois legality and challenges the hegemony of capital. Witness the successes of so-called "bossnappings" in winning severance packages.


And I disagree with you and Malcom X. You're underestimating capitalism, capitalism is highly adaptive, and they know if the majority of the people are against racism and sexism (I believe it's already the case in developed countries), they will have to adapt to diminish the risk of revolution. Why do we see many laws against spreading racism? I believe the efforts here are genuine.

I think you're being incredibly naïve. For one, laws are, in many cases, becoming far more draconian (eg changes to Canada's immigration law, esp. with regards to "inadmissibility" on "criminal" grounds). That these laws don't make explicit reference to race doesn't change their real content.
Certainly, capitalism is highly adaptive, but that's just it: its fundamental nature remains, and capitalism is premised, in the real world, on racism. Thus, we end up with a black President of the USA and close to million black people in the USA's prisons. In Canada we get a formal apology for the residential school system (kidnapping and torture of generations of indigenous children, a de facto genocidal act by the UN definition), while conditions on many reservations remain "third world" (lack of proper shelter, unreliable sources of clean water, etc.) - the genocide continues.
With gender, we can see the same thing - on one hand, women's formal freedom has massively increased. On the other, women's reproductive labour remains uncompensated, single women are disproportionately poor (even in the first world), women are disproportionately imprisoned for defending themselves from male violence, and so on.
No offence intended, but I really feel like you're not digging particularly deep on this.

[Marxaveli]

And I disagree with you and Malcom X. You're underestimating capitalism, capitalism is highly adaptive, and they know if the majority of the people are against racism and sexism (I believe it's already the case in developed countries), they will have to adapt to diminish the risk of revolution. Why do we see many laws against spreading racism? I believe the efforts here are genuine.
Of course, there's still much to be done, marketing is a lot sexist, people themselves are sexist sometimes without even realising due to how deep it is in our roots.

Your argument is that it isn't profitable to be openly racist anymore - and I don't think many would disagree with this. But this is a strawman, because it isn't what I was arguing. Whether the efforts are genuine or not aren't relevant, the fact of the matter is capitalism was built upon racism, sexism, and genocide and these things are a natural and continuous process and consequence of the capitalist system. I don't care how many laws you make trying to end racism or sexism, in a capitalist system they will always be present because they are required so for the pursuit and accumulation of profits. Notice how whenever you go to fill out an application for a job it says "we are an equal opportunity employer, discrimination based on race, sex, creed, etc etc is prohibited by law blah blah blah"?? Yet minorities have a higher rate of unemployment and poverty, are paid less on the dollar compared to white workers, have a higher rate of incarceration, and more. The same is true of women compared to their male counterparts in most of these areas. I think you need to snap out of your liberal idealist fantasy world and come to terms with reality - you are ignoring the deep seeded social and historical forces that make capitalism what it is.

[RedWaves]

A revolution gets things done.


I know I sound like a nutcase, but I don't give a shit; violence works. History has proven this time and time again. This is why protesting today is so meaningless. If you want change, you have to take it by force.


A reform is not going to happen unless we start voting in the Marxists, the Socialists, and the Communists, and do you really see America doing that? They are convinced Barack Obama is a Communist. That alone should tell you they don't know jack shit about Marxism and still have this cold war ideology that anything against Capitalism is bad.


A revolution is more likely and will happen eventually in the future, but we are a long long ways from it.


If America has proved anything since it's existence, it's that you can easily enslave people and they will never rise up. Take the slave revolts for example, we only had a dozen of them in hundreds of years of slavery. When has a revolution even worked in America besides 1776? You had all the worker revolts that resulted in nothing but deaths. The Rockefellers should have been in fucking jail for those massacres of killing their workers for going on strikes.(instead they are worshiped). It's proof yet again that America has always been this country where the rich can do whatever the fuck they want as they please, and poor people are shit on.
Then in the 60's you had a lot of protesting and people that were willing to take a bullet for change. You do not have even near that level of protesting anymore. There's no way we're going to see a revolution in the future when today's age of protesting is just people holding up signs all day and screaming how mad they are, and most of them don't even know what they are mad about.

Socialism don't just come over night with changing a few laws. It takes a long time to get there, and right now we are a long, long ways from that path. There is no such thing as 'left wing' in America. You have right, and ultra right. The Democrats are right wing, they sold their souls to the corporate profits ages ago, and the Conservatives are the corporate owners and rich establishment. So when you hear that Democrats have no balls, that's actually an accurate statement. They let the other right wing walk all over them, just as long as they can make money too, it's all good.

That's why a reform isn't going to work. We have a small tiny drop of Socialism in America. There's no left wing whatsoever and no one wants to introduce them to the picture cause they are still brainwashed with that old cold war propaganda. As soon as you bring up Communism in America, the typical response is "well I don't know, Stalin killed like a bazillion people". Capitalism don't even look good on paper! It always has amazed me we've been indoctrinated to accept Marxism, Socialism, and Communism as bad, but we are supposed to think of Capitalism as great. But capitalism don't even look good on paper, and that's why they don't break it down to you in school and show you how hard you're going to get fucked if you don't come from a rich established class. They forget to mention all that with the "you can be rich!" stuff they constantly tell you.

A reform isn't going to happen, and for the time being, a revolution isn't going to happen unless people realize they have nothing to lose and are willing to get violent and even sacrifice themselves in an attempt to make the world a better place. That's not about to happen in America. America has proved over it's entire history that it's possible to brainwash people and give them some privileges and rewards for being obedient slaves to the bourgeois, and they aren't going to rise up and do anything about it. Fear of the unknown; that is the main reason you never see anyone wanting to do anything about the current system we live in, unless it's those Illuminatitard assholes that worship Alex Jones and scream that we need to replace capitalism with more capitalism.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

Your argument is that it isn't profitable to be openly racist anymore - and I don't think many would disagree with this. But this is a strawman, because it isn't what I was arguing. Whether the efforts are genuine or not aren't relevant, the fact of the matter is capitalism was built upon racism, sexism, and genocide and these things are a natural and continuous process and consequence of the capitalist system. I don't care how many laws you make trying to end racism or sexism, in a capitalist system they will always be present because they are required so for the pursuit and accumulation of profits. Notice how whenever you go to fill out an application for a job it says "we are an equal opportunity employer, discrimination based on race, sex, creed, etc etc is prohibited by law blah blah blah"?? Yet minorities have a higher rate of unemployment and poverty, are paid less on the dollar compared to white workers, have a higher rate of incarceration, and more. The same is true of women compared to their male counterparts in most of these areas. I think you need to snap out of your liberal idealist fantasy world and come to terms with reality - you are ignoring the deep seeded social and historical forces that make capitalism what it is.
Calling someone a liberal is like the Godwin's law of Revleft.
The only essential thing in capitalism is exploitation of workers, racism and sexism aids that a lot, specially to devide the class, but I still think it's not 100% essential and capitalism can still survive without it if we don't do anything.

[Manic Impressive]

Despite that, I'd rather have an NHS than not have one. I'd hate to have a US-style system, although the ruling classes in the UK appear determined to get rid of the NHS via a death of a thousand cuts. :mad:
Please don't take my post as being anti-NHS. Of course the benefits to the working class have been tremendous. But to really understand reforms and why they are implemented we first need to look at the benefits to who is doing the implementing. Same with cuts actually. I had a short debate with a labour candidate because I refused to sign her petition for saving the post office. Not because I want to see the post office close. But because it is a utopian campaign. The post office was nationalized because businesses sent the vast majority of letters. At great expense to their profit margins. Post offices and the postal service being sold off to private ownership only shows that due to the internet and various other advances a state run postal service is no longer in the interest of capital. Even though it still plays a vital role especially in rural communities. It was a state subsidy to business that is no longer worth it. Same goes for the NHS I'm afraid. No reform gets passed that isn't in the interests of capital and no cut is made that is not in the interests of capital. Unless the threat to capital itself is so great that the state will choose to bribe workers with petty reforms rather than face revolution.


As Lafargue explains so well

At the present moment a kind of Socialism for the capitalists is being created. It is very modest. It contents itself with the transformation of certain industries into public services. Above all, it does not compromise one. On the contrary it will rally a good number of capitalists.
They are told: Look at the Post Office, that is a Socialist public service, functioning admirably to the profit of the community, and more cheaply than if it were entrusted to a private company as was formerly the case. The gas supply, the railways and the building of workmen’s dwellings must also become public services. They will function to the profit of the community and will chiefly benefit the capitalist class.
In capitalist society, the transformation of certain industries into municipal or national services is the last form of capitalist exploitation. It is because that form presents multiple and incontestable advantages for the bourgeoisie that in every capitalist country the same industries are becoming nationalised (Army, Police, Post Office, Telegraphs, the Mint, etc.).
Certain monopolised industries, indeed, delivered up to the greed of private companies, become instruments for the exploitation of other sections of the capitalist class, and so powerful that they disturb the whole bourgeois system.
Here are a few examples. The electric telegraph, on its introduction into France, became a state service because the political interests of the Government required it. In England and the Unites States, where the same political interest did not exist, the telegraphs were established by private companies. The English Government was compelled to buy them out in the interests of all, particularly the speculators, who in the transformation found means of obtaining scandalous profits. In the United States the telegraph service is still in private hands. It is monopolised by a gang of speculators who control the entire Press of the country. Those speculators communicate telegrams only to newspapers in vassalage to them, and which must pay such a heavy tax that many, being unable to bear such a burden, do without telegraphic news altogether. In America telegrams are the most important part of the newspapers; to deprive them of these dispatches is to condemn them to languish and die. In that republican Republic, which individualist Liberals take as the ideal of their most daring dreams, the liberty of the Press is at the mercy of a handful of speculators, without government force and without responsibility, but in control of the telegraph service.
The railway monopoly is so exorbitant that a company can ruin at will an industry or a town by differential or preferential tariffs. The danger to which society is exposed by the private ownership of the means of transport is so keenly felt that in France, England and the United States, many capitalists in their own interests demand the nationalisation of the railways. In capitalist society a private industry only becomes a State service in order to better serve the interest of the bourgeoisie. The advantages which the latter obtain are of different kinds; we have just spoken of the social danger created by the abandonment of certain industries to private exploitation, dangers which disappear or are attenuated as soon as the State directs them but there are others.
The State, by centralising administration, lessens the general charges; it runs the service at a smaller cost. The State is accused of paying everything more dearly than private enterprise; nevertheless, such is not always the case when there is a question of the establishment of means of communication, one of the most difficult and complex enterprises in modern society. Thus the tramways constructed in France have, with rare exceptions, cost an average of 250,000 to 300,000 francs per kilometre as a first establishment charge. The railway from Alais to the Rhone has eaten up per kilometre of line a sum of about 700,000 francs. M. Freycinet, who is not a bourgeois director for fun, has established upon positive grounds that the State could construct railways at a cost of 200,000 francs per kilometre. The State can therefore sensibly diminish the prices of the services it exploits. It is the capitalists who profit by the reduction, because it is they, principally, who make use of them. Thus, what a number of workmen only use the postal service once or twice a year! And how very numerous are the commercial houses and industrial concerns which send out over ten and twenty letters a day!
State services become a means to politicians for placing their tools or dependants, and for giving good, fat sinecures to the sons-in-law of the bourgeoisie. M. Cochery has accorded lucrative posts to Orleanists; among others, to the son of Senator Laboulaye, the man of the inkpot.


Militants of the Parti Ouvrier may and must in their polemics against the public men and the politicians of the capitalist class, make use of this transformation of one time private industries into State services, to show how the bourgeoisie themselves are led by the logic of events to attack their own principles, which demand that society, represented by the State, snatch no industry from private initiative.

But they must not desire, and still less demand, the transformation of fresh industries into national services, and that for diverse reasons.
Because it is to the interest of the workers’ party to embitter the conflicts which lacerate the capitalist class, instead of seeking to pacify them – these antagonisms quicken the disorganisation of the ruling class; because nationalisation increases the corruptive power of capitalist politicians; because State employees, like workers in private employ, strike and engage in a struggle with the exploiters.
The only Socialist reason that one might put forward for that transformation is that perhaps it might simplify the revolutionary work of expropriation by the workers’ party; we will examine this on another occasion.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lafargue/1882/06/socnat.htm

[Firebrand]

People view reforms and revolutions as separate processes. They aren't really. The struggle for revolution is what forces the ruling class to grant reforms, the struggle for reforms is what awakens peoples revolutionary conciousness and tells people the ruling class are not invincible. Revolution achieves our ultimate goals, reforms make peoples lives better in the meantime.

[Marxaveli]

Calling someone a liberal is like the Godwin's law of Revleft.
The only essential thing in capitalism is exploitation of workers, racism and sexism aids that a lot, specially to devide the class, but I still think it's not 100% essential and capitalism can still survive without it if we don't do anything.

Can you cite ONE historical example this being the case (a capitalist state or society w/o racism or sexism)? What you "think" and what actually is aren't necessarily the same thing.

As far as calling someone a liberal on RevLeft being like Godwin's Law, maybe so. But even if you aren't a liberal, you certainly are viewing this from an idealist standpoint, and not a materialist one.

[Sabot Cat]

Can you cite ONE historical example this being the case (a capitalist state or society w/o racism or sexism)? What you "think" and what actually is aren't necessarily the same thing.

Although there has been no hierarchical society devoid of those, there's plenty of instances of xenophobia and misogyny milennia before the capitalist mode of production was common to the world. This suggests that sexism and racism are not the products of capitalism, but the result of the scarcity-driven subjugation endemic to all of history.

[Marxaveli]

They aren't the products of capitalism so much as they are the products of class society in general. But I do not see any material evidence to suggest that capitalism specifically can seek profits without these things existing at an institutional level. In slave society, you didn't have institutionalized racism so much as you had "invidual racism", but such societies didn't need it, because if you were born a slave you remained a slave regardless of your skin color. In the case of sexism, women of course were automatically slaves, and weren't even considered human beings much less actual citizens.

You cannot have capitalism without racism or sexism, even if these things long existed before the development of capital. The ruling class recognized this even back in the late 1600's when they crushed Bacon's Rebellion and when the slave trade replaced indentured servitude as the primary force of class exploitation. Of course slavery in itself would eventually go on to become disadvantageous for industrialization in America, but the element of institutional racism (and sexism) needed to remain and were simply reformed, adjusted, and contoured to the necessities of capitalist development - which is why Jim Crowe laws replaced slavery. Then those were replaced with what we have now, whatever you want to call it. But institutional racism still exists all the same, regardless of what form it takes on.

Whether they are the product of capitalist society isn't my argument so much as that they are necessary social relations for capitalism and its purpose. They just take on a different characterization that is distinct from other types of class societies.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Although there has been no hierarchical society devoid of [racism and sexism] [. . .]

I'd actually dispute that, on the grounds that it's arguably pretty a) anachronistic and b) Eurocentric. Race and sex, as we know them, both have distinct histories rooted in particular social relations that can't be nearly so easily applied to other contexts. What does "sexism" mean outside of the context of binary gender/sex? What does "race" mean outside of the context in which it was discursively produced, and its relationship to colonialism? Was it "racism" that led the Romans to raze Carthage? The idea seems deeply problematic.